Paranormal Photography: KRI

We at the KRI don't place a tremendous amount of value on still photography, mostly because there is a limited amount of information any standard still camera can capture in comparison to our other equipment. Preliminary experimentation has done nothing to help us overcome these limitations, but we continue working towards expanding the funtionality of still imaging. However, we nevertheless keep a few in our equipment bags, and do allow our investigators to bring personal cameras.

The problem with all digital cameras is that they neither replicate its intended target image very well, nor even replicate the functions of film-based equipment. Further, the many different manufacturers of digital cameras take nearly as many different approaches with regard to addressing and overcoming these issues (without including the technical information about them in their specifications), making it nearly impossible to fairly compare one digital camera to another, or to film-based cameras. When you go with digital you just don't know what you're getting, and the more automatic features a camera has has, the more impossible the problem becomes to understand, much less address adequately. Digital in general uses software to simulate mechanical features on film cameras, and that software introduces all kinds of anomalies that are difficult to identify or compensate for.

Our one digital camera (Canon S110 Powershot) is used during our pre-investigation interviews to identify and record site hazards and likely areas in which we plan to place fixed-position video cameras. During an investigation, we first use it to record those fixed-position video cameras once they're set up - one shot to record the camera set-ups' postition relative to its surroundings in case we need to duplicate that set-up at a later date, and one to replicate that video camera's field of vision. After that is accomplished, we generally use it to get higher resolution images of objects and areas within the video camera's field of vision or candid shots of the team at work (for the website) - if we pick the camera back up at all. On occasion we do photographic walk-throughs of "more intense" sites with one investigator using the digital and one using a 35mm. They take simulaneous shots (as nearly so as we can manage) of whatever the point of interest is so we can compare the digital images to the film images after the on-site phase of the investigation is complete.

The one advantage we've found for using a digital camera is that it is extremely inexpensive to use and maintain. After the initial purchase, the only additional expense is periodic battery replacement - even lithium ion batteries need to be replaced every couple years.

We also have two 35mm cameras - a Concord C2001 "point and click," and a Nishika N8000 3D. 35mm cameras are not nearly as cheap to use as they formerly were, so we generally use them sparingly. For the Concord, we largely only use it for experimentation and comparison (to digital), and it was purchased primarily because its functionality and automatic features appeared to duplicate those of our Canon digital fairly well.

As expensive as the Concord is to use, the Nishika is more than twice as pricey. It literally uses film twice as fast as the Concord (by spreading it's stereoscopic images across two 35mm frames), and only (more expensive) specialty shops will develop it. It is only used in situations in which a digital camera has already found something interesting, or for the purposes of experimentation. As expensive as the Nishika is to use, 3D images add a tremendous amount of information to a photograph. It is the only way to add depth to any kind of image - while video adds depth through comparative motions, the Nishika adds depth through relative perspective.

We've never seen anything in our own digital stills we feel cannot be attributed to a mundane cause. This is also true of the tremendous number of photos we've seen online - of them, only the tiniest fraction are images we feel are truly anomalous, and we cannot rule out "hoax" without knowing the professionalism and integrity of the group or individual who captured the image.